W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Alternative terminology for "consumer"

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:25:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnBLXbU9SpYDhh3utAb=QF+1nh15udBaw+du5TpbSXaS4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Cc: "Varn, Richard J" <rvarn@ets.org>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com>, Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
That's what I meant too. ;-)

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016, 1:24 PM Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:

> Eric,
>
> I actually meant "consumer" as in someone who purchasing something.  In a
> financial transaction (e.g., purchasing from wine.com) I am the consumer
> of the wine (eventually!) and wine.com is the consumer of my credential.
> But I think that is okay.
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 Shane I think it works perfect for financial...in finance when we
>> consume something, we are acquiring something.  In our case, we are
>> acquiring the credential metadata.
>>
>> <https://mail.google.com/>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah - I think consumer is the appropriate generic term.  It is
>>> unfortunate that it has a conflicting meaning in the financial space...
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm still on board for "consumer" - if you are viewing, processing,
>>>> loading in, making a decision upon, etc. of a credential,  your are
>>>> _consuming_ it in one way or another.  The consumer is a 3rd party - who
>>>> has may have no formal tie to the issuer or holder of the credential - it
>>>> can be a machine, an app, or a person (a "decision maker").
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>> <https://mail.google.com/>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Varn, Richard J <rvarn@ets.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Right, but the entity using the claim does not verify, authenticate,
>>>>> or approve the claim--they use it for some process or purpose and the
>>>>> purpose is a gatekeeper function. I think gatekeeper, especially when pared
>>>>> with function, has drifted from a military context and it's a fairly unique
>>>>> phrase without any generic synonyms except the pretty obscure "ostiary." I
>>>>> have no firm position or dog in this discussion, licensed or otherwise
>>>>> holding any dog credentials, just thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mar 31, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Dave Longley <
>>>>> dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On 03/31/2016 11:28 AM, Varn, Richard J wrote:
>>>>> >> I had one additional thought about the consumer of claims. It
>>>>> >> strikes me that the role they are actually playing is gatekeeper. I
>>>>> >> got to this after thinking about the various processes in which
>>>>> >> claims are used and the reason that someone wants your claim/s is to
>>>>> >> evaluate it/them in a context. If the evaluation finds the claims
>>>>> >> and attendant and other sources of evidence sufficient, you get a
>>>>> >> chance at an opportunity, access to something, a permission, a
>>>>> >> benefit, and so on. I am not sure gatekeeper is the best word but
>>>>> >> wanted to share the line of thinking and see how it may help.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've had a similar thought, (with terms like "gatekeeper", "guard",
>>>>> > "sentinel", etc.) but felt it seemed those terms or many like it had
>>>>> too
>>>>> > many negative or militaristic connotations. That concept is where the
>>>>> > friendlier "approver" term came from. "Verifier" and "authenticator"
>>>>> are
>>>>> > in a similar vein.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Dave Longley
>>>>> > CTO
>>>>> > Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged
>>>>> or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for
>>>>> whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this
>>>>> e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy,
>>>>> distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this
>>>>> information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail
>>>>> is prohibited.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your compliance.
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shane McCarron
>>> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 17:26:31 UTC